4 ms·
If anything it should go in the acknowledgments section, not the author list. Would you list grammarly as a coauthor?
by rsfern 4y ago
If anything it should go in the acknowledgments section, not the author list. Would you list grammarly as a coauthor?
- tick_tock_tick 4y agoGrammarly doesn't write whole pages itself.
- rsfern 4y agoTrue, but I still think chatGPT is just a tool, maybe more powerful than grammarly, but I think it’s generally still fairly low level in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy. Authorship is supposed to be for intellectual contribution. If LLMs get good enough to start identifying weaknesses in my methods section or suggesting novel analyses to answer scientific questions, then maybe I’ll reconsider my view Though there’s still the argument made in this article that authors should be able to take responsibility for the work, which under our current legal framework programs can’t do
- carbocation 4y agoYou are in good company: > “An attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs,” says Magdalena Skipper, editor-in-chief of Nature in London. Authors using LLMs in any way while developing a paper should document their use in the methods or acknowledgements sections, if appropriate, she says.
- cuteboy19 4y agoI don't understand why llms need to be acknowledged if writing assistants aren't.
- thastings 4y agoExactly, came here to write this. Disclosing the contribution of ChatGPT is quite important though from a transparency standpoint. I wouldn't mind seeing it in the methods section either.
- snthpy 4y agoOr Google? Google probably also replaced the work of many a research assistant. It's interesting that ChatGPT feels more human so we're more likely to anthropomorphise it, like list it as a coauthor.